Militant moderate, unwilling to concede any longer the terms of debate to the strident ideologues on the fringe. If you are a Democrat or a Republican, you're an ideologue. If you're a "moderate" who votes a nearly straight party-ticket, you're still an ideologue, but you at least have the decency to be ashamed of your ideology. ...and you're lying in the meantime.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

There's been
a political cartoon published criticizing the National Savior's regal proclamation
about the nation's 4.3 million … 8.7 million … 11.2 million … whatever the
figure the immigration hounds happen to settle on this week … illegal
immigrants.

The cartoon
is being decried, naturally, by ignoramuses — go figure — as "racist".

Clue, simpletons:
even if the people crawling in the window are hispanics [and that would be an
appropriate guess], "hispanic" is still not a race.I'm getting tired of having to explain
it."Hispanic" is a regionalism
which — according to the very definition of the term, invented by the US Census
Bureau for the 1970 US Census — transcends race: "a person of [list
excised for brevity] general Spanish-origin culture regardless of race".

Identifying
someone as "hispanic" on an employment application is the equivalent
of using "Yankee" [or "Damyankee",in the south] on the demographic portion of
the same employment application to identify someone from north of the Potomac.Or, for the sake of equivalence, it is also
the same as using "Redneck" [to be polite] or "Peckerwood"
to identify someone from south of same.Further juxtaposed examples: Sissy Easterner and Cowboy; Left-Coaster
and Mudstuck Midwesterner.

In short,
moonbats, "Mexican" is not a race; "Guatemalan" is not a
race; "Dominican" is not a race.

"Hispanic"!
Is not! A race!Get it through your
heads.

But the
idiot disingenuity does not end there.Of all the vacuous critics available I shall use the criticism offered
up by one Timothy B Lee for no other reason than his was the most succinct of
the competing moronicals, cramming the standard ignorances into a smaller space
than his simpering cohort.

Beyond
betraying his cluelessness on race, he admits to a gross noncomprehension of
the purpose of political cartoons: broad burlesque — gross exaggeration for the
purpose of making a larger point.He piously
sniffed "Hispanic Americans celebrate Thanksgiving like the rest of us…".Then he whined that the National Savior's
imperial pronouncement doesn't actually allow in more illegal immigrants
[except when it does], it simply allows those already here to stay.A-a-a-and congratulations
on missing the point, there, bozo.You
had to be pretty spry and flexible to dodge those.

Finally, he
very adeptly refuses to honestly address the primary problem with this subject
in the first place: the word "illegal".Like so many dishonest nitwits who prattle on
about illegal immigration and should keep their mouths shut instead, he endlessly
equivocates the matter, watering down the subject with euphemism, until it
resembles in their minds [and their minds only] nothing more errant than showing
up at a classmate's graduation party without having strictly been invited.

In the spirit
of the season, he equivocates the modern illegal immigrant from Central and
South America to the "uninvited" Pilgrims of the Plymouth
colony.With a command of language this
honest and literate, I would be unwilling to get in a car the boy was driving
where he needed to read, comprehend, and act on various road signs.My life would be in peril.

Illegal does
not mean uninvited.The Pilgrims were
not illegally in residence.Random millions of [often] hispanics and
[less often] Chinese and ex-soviet bloc Eastern Europeans, however, are.In order to make an honest parallel, you'd
need to demonstrate that the Narragansett, or the Pequot, or the Pawtuxet, or
the Wampanoag [et al] had a law against people landing on their shores and
squatting thereupon; they did not.The
United States — for better or worse — does have laws [too many, actually, and I
am on the "worse" side of the better/worse dichotomy] against people
entering our country without filling out reams of paperwork and submitting
themselves for imperious background investigation.Failure to follow our immigration laws makes
an immigrant, by definition, illegal.It
isn't hard to understand.

Without a
similar Amerind law against improper immigration, the Pilgrims would not have
been and could not have been [again, by definition] illegal. A good argument
could be made, on the other hand, that they were, unlike most modern illegal
immigrants, uninvited — as that class of modern American who cannot tell the
difference between "illegal" and "uninvited" often goes out
of its way to invite illegal immigration.Case in point: the National Savior's nonconstitutional imperial edict,
and the eternal rationalization of it by illiterate morons who cannot see a difference
between "illegal" and "uninvited".

Indeed, as
Lee continues to sniffle, the US for centuries "welcomed wave after wave
of immigrants", yet he fails to acknowledge that those immigrants
uniformly followed the rules of the day in coming here, thus not becoming illegal immigrants.Following the laws of the day for those
centuries involved buying a ticket on a ship heading to the US, walking off
after making port, and signing the log book in English [or in as near English
as possible].Following the law and
avoiding becoming illegal was trivially simple.

It is this
comprehensive failure among the critics of American immigration policy marked
by the recriminatory designation of "illegal" to get through their
thick, hidebound, granite skulls that the immigrants they are so fond of would
cease being illegal if those critics
themselves were not so enamored of endless [and endlessly complex] laws upon
every goddammed thing they can think of.Today's immigration laws were crafted by the liberal boobs of the 60s
and 70s who sought to place region-of-origin limits upon new American arrivals,
and required that those arrivals be free of untoward political contrariness and
have certain demonstrable skills — all subject to painstaking [and costly]
investigation and verification by the US government.Among the chief architects of these laws was
one balloon-headed boob by the name of Edward "Ted" Kennedy.

Most of the
hispanic immigrants Lee and his ilk get all teary-eyed over would not be "legal"
under the best of circumstances; they don't have any of the statutory skills
required to comply with US law.Hispanics having those skills stay home and work for comparatively high
wages in their own countries, and only come to the US as tourists.That same thing cannot be said about the
majority of the immigrants from China or the ex-soviet bloc.

Those who
whimper and whine about immigration, and decrying the word "illegal"
to describe a large portion of it, are simply demonstrating they are too dim to
fundamentally understand the nature of the real problem: themselves.They
are the ones who seek to "fix" perceived "problems" by
slathering it with inextricably complex federal law.Then, when the law has been enacted and
imposed for a generation, they act all flummoxed by the inevitable unintended
consequences, blaming those who had nothing to do with it in the first place
for their own self-righteous vanity in believing they could alter reality by
plastering it with a law.

Once again:
law does one of two things, and usually both at the same time:

1] create a
new bureaucrat class;

2] create a
new criminal class.

Those who
seek to "solve" "problems" with laws are, whether they
understand it or not [and in the case of Lee and his runny-nose gang, I'd guess
not], demanding to reclassify a large portion of their fellow humans as
criminals.Forty-five million criminals
were instantly created by Obamacare; various millions over a generation by US
immigration law.Feeble-minded dolts did
this themselves; they have no claim to piety when others point out the
consequences of their actions.